Assumption buster #1 M.O.

[Cogidubnus]

I can't remember when I saw a better post than this on this forum.

I can...it was today on another thread...same author though...both cracking posts.

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Im not at all trained in maladies of the mind, but I think its sufficient to say that anyone who could commit acts as seen in some of the Canonical murders had to have something wrong with his mental functioning.

But people who commit murder solely to satisfy their internal demons are mentally ill, the specific nature of their illness isnt really the issue.

Best regards

But it is the issue. You are saying they are suffering from a disease category that at some point in time or another, 22% of the population will suffer from. 21.99% of which will never harm another human being. If you don't want to call every other person with a mental illness a potential threat to the safety of all mankind, getting specific would be greatly appreciated. Mental illness is a specific dysfunction with specific characteristics and specific symptoms, none of which have anything to do with gutting another human being. It isn't an illness, anymore than pedophilia is an illness. It is an impulse you either chose to act on, or you don't. Every human being on the planet has had the impulse to tear someone limb from limb. It's part of rage. We all feel it. It's healthy. We choose not to act on that impulse. Killers choose to act on it. There's nothing wrong with them. There is no MRI, no PET scan, no DNA analysis, no medical test on the planet that will show them to be any different from you. No medical standard exists that defines them as abnormal. No doctor or scientist on the planet will be able to point out to you anything and say "they are this way because of this". So by definition, their problem is not medical. By definition, it is not psychological, and by definition it is no illness. You say they have to be sick to do this. Your judgement. There is no universal law that says we have to give a crap about our fellow man, or hold them in any esteem. No biological imperative to be concerned with the survival of other humans.

You say he was mentally ill. I'm mentally ill. And he is nothing like me. Nor like anyone I've ever met. And yes, I know sociopaths. being a sociopath doesn't make someone a killer. What killers lack is the desire to curb their own appetites in order to conform to a social norm. The same thing junkies, rapists, hermits, religious zealots, and a whole bunch of other people have. You call it a disease, where poor little Jack had no choice but to kill. Because that's the other side of the coin you know. You can't have one without the other. You say bloodlust is an illness. It's not. The Romans were quite fond of it, as were the Celts. And the Revolutionary French, the Mayans, Aztecs, Native Americans, Georgian English, some spectacular examples in European Royalty for two thousand years.... killing for sport, religion and pleasure. What Jack did was nothing spectacular compared to what happened to William Wallace. And the Northern American tradition of tarring and feathering sounds kind of funny, but is actually incredibly brutal and lethal. It's a part of us. No matter how distasteful it may seem. It's not an illness, if anything, it's our natural state.

[Bridewell]

You say he was mentally ill. I'm mentally ill. And he is nothing like me.

Hi Errata,

This one extract proves your point for me. You are mentally ill and yet entirely rational in what you post on these boards. Ergo mental illness and irrationality are two entirely different concepts, surely? The Whitechapel Murderer ( by which I mean the mutilator of at least some of the victims) acted, in the eyes of civilised society, entirely irrationally. That does not, of itself, mean that he was mentally ill IMHO. He may have been so, but the murder and mutilation of women are not the proof of it. Such killers have been found fit to plead, have stood trial, been convicted and, in some cases, executed. I agree with you. There is no evidence which proves that the killer of these women was mentally ill. His actions were vile, That much we know. However, there are people who are truly evil, They exist and are, in some cases anyway, entirely sane.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

The Whitechapel Murderer ( by which I mean the mutilator of at least some of the victims) acted, in the eyes of civilised society, entirely irrationally.

We must though concede that both in his approach to the victim, and in his departure he must have acted rationally, or he would have been caught. Also, during those few minutes he was occupied with mutilation he apparently did not loose track of time, or of awareness of where he was and the risks he was taking.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

The truth is, I've done a lot of school. A ridiculous amount in fact, because I was never disciplined as a child, and I could never decide what I actually wanted a degree in. I'm about a semester shy in 6 different majors, aside from my actual major. Which ended up being Psychology without my noticing. So yes, I've studied Psychology, I'm not just a client. But because I've taken way too many classes, I've come to the conclusion that no social science explains anything. You need them all. If you want to try and understand a person, or even just catalog them, you need psychology, anthropology, sociology, and archeology wouldn't hurt. I have a couple of mental illnesses. None of which explain 99% of my actions. I know that, the people who know me know that. But even if I had a great hulking tumor on my frontal lobe, that still wouldn't explain me or my choices, what I find important, what I can't ignore, or how I come to those choices. Sure knowing I had a tumor might explain some things. But so would knowing I was raised a Southern Jew by sarcastic Yankee parents who were terrified of my illnesses. It helps to know that my brain doesn't absorb chemicals in the normal way, that I have an incredibly low self esteem, that no one of my acquaintance was the same religion I was (barring six kids), my older sister was an insane control freak, I came from 5 generations of military family, I died a couple of times as a kid, I have an almost perfect memory, an excellent singing voice, a sick sense of humor, and bad knees.

Because If you notice that I don't ever run, not ever, it could be because I'm lazy, it could be that I am naturally a sedate person, it could be that I was raised in a culture that believes that ladies never engaged in activity that could make them sweat, it could be that I simply don't care about the time of others and so am never in a hurry, I'm self conscious about the size of my chest, or it could be that I have shredded cartilage in my knees. All of which are true. One observation "gee I've never seen her run" dozens of reasons why. And not a single one of them has to do with a mental illness of any kind. Cannibalism in the classic sense only had to do with psychology in that it created a nervous system disorder (Kuru) that caused psychological problems. They didn't eat human flesh because they were mentally ill, or deranged. They did it as a religious ceremony to retain a part of their loved ones after death. And that's why Dahmer did the exact same thing, but he's crazy for doing it. Because we assume that a white Western man should "know better" than to indulge in some barbarian superstition. Assuming Dahmer was mentally ill is not only wrong, it's actually incredibly racist. Unless someone is prepared to say that he was mentally ill for killing those men, but indulging in an alternative lifestyle for eating them.

It's a crazy world, and one man's mandate is another man' anathema. There are very few social rules we agree on. In fact, there is only one rule we all agree on. And it's not the one you think. The one universal rule is that if you are going to be part of a culture, you must submit yourself to it's rules. Otherwise you face imprisonment, death, or expulsion. No society can afford to keep people around who do not work for the whole. Do as thou wilt is not the whole of the law. Do what you are expected to do or be removed is.

[Michael W Richards]

Within every modern society is a series of unwritten codes pertaining to the Morality and Behavior of its citizens. To enforce those codes we have Laws.

I am suggesting that the killer of the first 2 Canonicals was aware of those codes and laws, as he lived and functioned within a society, but he acted on his impulses despite those known parameters. The acts committed were particularly cruel and vicious and abhorrent to any sane person.

Thats why I say "some kind" of mental illness. Im a layman, Im not trained in the granular categorizations of mental dysfunction that some others are, but I know whats lacking sanity and self control when I see it.

Its not about bad decisions, like was suggested with Dahlmer, its about an inability to make correct ones in some cases.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

... I've come to the conclusion that no social science explains anything. You need them all. If you want to try and understand a person, or even just catalog them, you need psychology, anthropology, sociology, and archeology wouldn't hurt.

...and you would still be inaccurate. No one is completely understood. Psychology is common sense at its best and vanity in its professional sphere. It's no wonder that drugs and suppression of perceived illnesses have become the preferred methods of dealing with patients.

Mike

[Hunter]

I am suggesting that the killer of the first 2 Canonicals was aware of those codes and laws, as he lived and functioned within a society, but he acted on his impulses despite those known parameters. The acts committed were particularly cruel and vicious and abhorrent to any sane person.

That could be applied to all of the murders if those are the criteria.

[Errata]

I am suggesting that the killer of the first 2 Canonicals was aware of those codes and laws, as he lived and functioned within a society, but he acted on his impulses despite those known parameters. The acts committed were particularly cruel and vicious and abhorrent to any sane person.

Thats why I say "some kind" of mental illness. Im a layman, Im not trained in the granular categorizations of mental dysfunction that some others are, but I know whats lacking sanity and self control when I see it.

But a lack of self control is not indicative of illness. And sanity only requires the ability to reason, the conclusion is immaterial. What you describe is common to every single person who breaks a law anywhere. Jaywalkers to serial killers. And also anyone who breaks any other societal norms, like cross dressers, people who violate personal space, those who choose not to have children. Just because you don't understand how a perfectly sane person can mutilate women in such a way doesn't mean he isn't a perfectly sane person. Perfectly sane people do such things all the time. And worse. And weirder. It isn't a function of sanity. It's a function of soul.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi errata,

We are not just talking about simply a lack of self control,...were talking about a lack of control, and missing "filters", and violent acts against innocent people.

Perfectly sane people do not kill and mutilate others. However, people who may appear at times to be so certainly do.

Soul has nothing to do with this particular question errata. Were not talking about good and evil, we are talking about right and wrong. Something a well mind has no trouble distinguishing between.

Again, someone who kills and mutilates people MUST have some sort of mental illness, since the brain is obviously not functioning within the parameters established by Societal Laws and the persons own Morality...or as in these cases, absent sense of morality.

If the Input is corrupted by physical or environmental factors, then the Output will be as well.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

That could be applied to all of the murders if those are the criteria.

Perhaps Hunter,... since a jealous rage, protection of ones self or assets, a or a wounded ego could also create what we see in some of the crimes.

Cheers Hunter

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael

Perfectly sane people do not kill and mutilate others. However, people who may appear at times to be so certainly do.

Again, someone who kills and mutilates people MUST have some sort of mental illness, since the brain is obviously not functioning within the parameters established by Societal Laws and the persons own Morality...or as in these cases, absent sense of morality.

How about a soldier with a bayonet on his rifle? Well there you see it's a matter of context...in that particular context "society" says it's ok to kill and mutilate...even encourages it...

But just who is this "society" and who legitimises it? What if I disagree? On the one hand I could be a conchie...on the other a ripper...which would the white feather ladies prefer me to be, and what does that make THEM? Insane? Or just stupid and misguided? Or right? Who decides?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

We must though concede that both in his approach to the victim, and in his departure he must have acted rationally, or he would have been caught. Also, during those few minutes he was occupied with mutilation he apparently did not loose track of time, or of awareness of where he was and the risks he was taking.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

In clarification, when I referred to him being irrational in the eyes of civilised society, I was alluding to his actions in carrying out acts of killing and mutilation. To the proverbial 'man on the Clapham omnibus' there would be no rational justification for such actions.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Hi errata,

We are not just talking about simply a lack of self control,...were talking about a lack of control, and missing "filters", and violent acts against innocent people.

Perfectly sane people do not kill and mutilate others. However, people who may appear at times to be so certainly do.

Soul has nothing to do with this particular question errata. Were not talking about good and evil, we are talking about right and wrong. Something a well mind has no trouble distinguishing between.

Again, someone who kills and mutilates people MUST have some sort of mental illness, since the brain is obviously not functioning within the parameters established by Societal Laws and the persons own Morality...or as in these cases, absent sense of morality.

If the Input is corrupted by physical or environmental factors, then the Output will be as well.

Cheers

I don't see the soul as a function of good an evil either. I see it as the last unquantifiable part of our being. Things that cannot be explained by biology, chemistry, or upbringing. The soul rules over taste, preferences, humor, everything from why I hate olives, love the color orange, get irrationally angry when people use the word "literally" wrong, why I like cats but not dogs, and yes, even believing in god.

But I think I see the disconnect here. You apparently are under the impression that the brain dictates morality. It doesn't. Nor does it have anything to do with why we have the social constructs that we do, why we create rules, why we are in fact a society. Except in one way. We as people need other people. Not for any sentimental reason, but because we as a species are more like ants than tigers. A tiger can go it's whole life never seeing another tiger. It can acquire all of the necessary resources for it's comfort by itself. We can't do that. We can build a hut, raise a few plants, hunt, mate, etc. but we can't do it so successfully that we can continue on through generations that way. We can't do that and raise offspring. So we have to group together to ensure the next generation. Our brains know that our survival is contingent upon being plural. It's why we get lonely. It's why we require external input to be satisfied. But if our brains governed our socialization, we would be born obedient. Still demanding, as all infants are, but obedient. We aren't born that way. We are socialized that way to a certain extent.

We grow up learning to be obedient to adults, but we at the same time we learn that adults do not have to be obedient to anything. Remember that abstract concepts such as obedience to the law or to societies norms come much later. Because we are still animals, when we reach maturity at about 13, we start to try to separate from the adults in our lives to relieve a strain on resources and spread out. We are social animals, but only to a degree. Social convention states that we do not become adults until we are 18. Our brains disagree. Which is why adolescence is unmitigated hell for most people, child AND parent.

Our earliest societies had no laws. And no morality. Which would have been chaos if it wasn't just packs of maybe 20 people. They stuck together to improve their chances of eating, to have guaranteed access to mates, to be safer. The only possible punishment to killing another man is that you no longer had that man hunting for the group. You risked starving if you killed. On the other hand, killing a man also meant less competition for mates, so that was a good thing. The larger a society, the more rules. But also, the more more external punishments for breaking those rules, since in a society our size, we no longer pay a personal price for the taking of a life. If I killed my neighbor, my life would not be jeopardized. I don't rely on his efforts to contribute to my well being. Which is why morality was invented. To ensure that I don't break society's rules even when those rules have no personal consequence to me.

There is nothing in our brains that dictates the sanctity of human life. Nor is there actually anything in our upbringing that dictates it. We are socialized in a very peculiar way. We are told not to hit people because it's wrong. We know it's wrong because we get punished. We don't hit people because we don't want to get punished, not because we think "Gee, I really want to pop that guy in the nose for making that comment about my mother. But he doesn't deserve physical pain in return for my psychic pain, and it would reflect poorly on me, and deep down in my soul I truly believe that it makes me a bad person to strike another human being". No, we think "I would punch this guy in the face, but he'd probably sue me." Not terribly altruistic.

Because someone does not have a desire to conform to society's standards or their rules does not make them ill. If it was a groundhog displaying such traits, we might even speculate that it was the next step in evolution. You assume that he is okay with killing people. He might not have been at all. He simply didn't consider those women people. A majority of Londoners did not consider those women people. They were maybe a step above animals. Sure the Bible told him that he was wrong to kill them, and the law, but what else did? Why shouldn't he do exactly what he wanted with these women? Everyone else was. Even priests. Even the law. So what he wanted was different. Wanting to kill someone isn't indicative of illness. Lacking self control isn't, being curious about anatomy isn't, being angry, being enraged, none of it means he was ill or damaged in any way. We all do those things. The only difference is that he chose to do it, where we don't. And the fact that we don't doesn't mean we are more sane. It means we are more afraid of punishment. We aren't civilized because we want what's best for others. We are civilized because we fear. He wasn't afraid of the consequences. Well, clearly, he didn't have to be. He was never caught, never punished. He wasn't delusional to think he had nothing to fear from society. Turns out, he had nothing to fear from society.

So why does he want to butcher women when the rest of us don't want that? I dunno. Same reason I hate olives. Same reason I like putting tape on the bottom of my cat's feet to make her dance. Same reason I have spent every day for last three years talking to a neighbor with a Russian accent just to screw with her. Same reason I keep trying to be a sculptor despite the fact I have no talent at it. I just do. It's just part of who I am. I can tell you with absolute authority that my mental illnesses don't dictate who I am or what I like to do. They dictate my limitations, not my abilities. Frankly, a mental illness can keep a person from wanting to do something, but it cant make them want to do something.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi errata and Dave,

Since much of what you discuss here is based on Serial Killers errata, I searched for Serial Killers with brain anomalies and heres a few snippets from what I found...the bold sections are of my doing;

"Recent reports in science have found discrete locations in the brain that are used in intricate systems that serve as the human moral compass. Changes in the brain have long been known to change the behaviors of a man. In the famous example of Phineas Gage, an accident at his job caused an iron rod to pierce through Gage's skull. Gage was able to stand and speak a few moments later. His intelligence was intact, but it soon became clear that this once model young man had been changed by the incident. He now cursed, lied and behaved horribly to people around them. Gage's doctor, John Harlow, said that Gage was no longer Gage, and that the balance "between his intellectual faculty and his animal propensities" had been destroyed. Can this example of brain-injury be used to explain the 'animal propensities' of serial killers?

The concepts of morality and emotion are hard to wed to the notions of science. Neurobiology seeks to find places in the brain where these things exist. However, even neurologists don't necessarily agree upon the dichotomy between 'passion and reason'. The complex interdependence of the things humans think and feel are noticeable to every individual. And this complexity seems to be further proved by the complex organization of the brain. There may seem to be natural dichotomies between thinking and feeling, but perhaps morality is a complex system of inhibition and activation using portions of the brain designated to both. Neurobiology has its work cut out for it, and thus there may be many physical reasons for an individual to be immoral. There may be a simple center that explains all, but more likely there is an intricate system with multiple vulnerabilities.

By finding places in the brain where behavioral traits lie we can understand that there may exist people with neuropathological disorders that can show 'rational-analytic behavior' that is dysfunctional in that it lacks the social emotions that guide normal human behavior. We may find a thinking individual without the portion of his brain that elicits angst or disgust or the fear of social retribution and social acceptance. Indeed, it has been found that the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain involved in long-term planning and judgment, may not function properly in psychopathic subjects who are said to be 'immoral'. "To know does not necessarily mean to feel, even when you realize that what you know ought to make you feel in a specific way but fails to do so". Ted Bundy 'knew' what he was doing when he brutally murdered his victims, but he may not have been able to 'feel' the moral emotions that such brutality elicits from normal human beings."

Heres another;

"Adrian Raine, professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, has been trying to find answers to these questions by watching killers’ brains at work. To do this he is using two scanning techniques: positron emission tomography (PET), which allows him to see how their brains function; and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which helps him study the structure of their brains.

Raine compared the function and structure of the brains of 41 murderers and 41 control subjects and found that there was lower activity in the pre-frontal cortex (an area located above the eyes and behind the forehead) of the brains of murderers when compared to that of normal control subjects. Raine explains that the prefrontal cortex acts as the “brakes” in our brains, and since these individuals have poor prefrontal functioning, they are unable to control and regulate their emotions. However, Raine says that although there are many associations between poor prefrontal function and violence, brain dysfunction cannot be the only reason for violent behavior. There are larger societal and environmental reasons that lead to an individual becoming a murderer."

And here is a very interesting one;

"A scientist in California spends almost two decades studying the brains of serial killers, looking for biological clues of what makes a murderer. After learning that several of his ancestors were murderers, the scientist decides to scan his own brain. He then discovers, da da da dun—that his brain exactly matches that of a psychopath.

No it’s not the leaked plot of an upcoming thriller; it’s what actually happened to Dr. James Fallon. He’d been studying serial killers’ minds for years but it wasn’t until a conversation with his mother revealed that Fallon had a heap of murderous ancestors in his family tree that he decided to scan his own brain.

Just how many murderers is Fallon related to? Eight alleged killers in all, including the infamous Lizzy Borden, who was accused of killing her father and stepmother in 1882. (Now I don’t know what your family is like, but eight’s a lot!)

And after doing the scan, Fallon discovered that the region of his brain that is believed to play a factor in “ethical behavior, moral decision-making and impulse control”–the orbital cortex–had very little activity.

What’s more, a scan of his genes revealed that Fallon has an aggressive form of a gene known as the “warrior gene.” Fallon himself admits that the evidence indicates he’s “a born killer.”

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/30/...#ixzz2EDmB6eKQ

I realize that these are opinions and not definitive results but they do allign with what I have been suggesting.

Cheers